8 February 1995
Revision B on 10 May 95
RI-85RBi 'Institutional Cases on Alt.Religion.Scientology'
from Ron's Inspector
Message # RI-85RBi for Internet
An institutional case makes the most illogical statements
AS IF THEY ARE NORMAL STATEMENTS.
You say: "We have built the Golden Gate Bridge now.
And it has been open to traffic for one week."
The institutional case responds:
"I saw someone jump off a bridge to commit suicide. -
Bridges will be banned by
the Council for the Protection of the Rights
of Suicidal Syndrome Affected Citizens."
You say: "We have built the Golden Gate Bridge now.
And it has been open to traffic for one week."
The institutional case responds:
"I lived near a small river - my grandfather drowned there,
and he saw no bridge - otherwise he surely would have taken it
and he would not have drowned."
You say: "We have built the Golden Gate Bridge now.
And it has been open to traffic for one week."
The institutional case responds:
"I once swam across the Bay - it was a great experience
which improved my health considerably."
You say: "We have built the Golden Gate Bridge now.
And it has been open to traffic for one week."
The institutional case responds:
"The London Times reported that the Railway Bridge
over the Firth of Clyde
disappeared in the night during a heavy storm."
You say: "We have built the Golden Gate Bridge now.
And it has been open to traffic for one week."
The institutional case responds:
"I have put a warning-sign at the road
leading up to the bridge,
warning people that there were three car-accidents
and five suicide-attempts reported
to have taken place on bridges.
If they venture upon that bridge,
they will suffer the same fate."
You say: "We have built the Golden Gate Bridge now.
And it has been open to traffic for one week."
The institutional case responds:
"Only bridges which were built without money
and which do not cost maintenance
are capable of carrying any traffic safely."
You say: "We have built the Golden Gate Bridge now.
And it has been open to traffic for one week."
The institutional case responds:
"It is false. At the beach, I built a bridge.
It was washed away by the tide."
You say: "We have built the Golden Gate Bridge now.
And it has been open to traffic for one week."
The institutional case responds:
"Yes, I made the design myself,
and I improved upon the constructions.
The engineers of the Golden Gate Bridge
were only interested in making profit,
so their Bridge goes only a little way.
MY Bridge spans almost from San Francisco to Hawaii
and it costs less than the Golden Gate Bridge."
You say: "We have built the Golden Gate Bridge now.
And it has been open to traffic for one week."
The institutional case responds:
"I put little sticks of Dynamite
in the fences at the sides of the Bridge.
I hope people will get out of their cars some time
and hit the fence at a place where
I put the ignition for the explosives."
You say: "We have built the Golden Gate Bridge now.
And it has been open to traffic for one week."
The institutional case responds:
"It is blasphemy and a waste of money,
and it makes people addicted to using that means of transport.
They should walk around the Bay and enjoy the sunset.
Then they are happy!"
You say: "We have built the Golden Gate Bridge now.
And it has been open to traffic for one week."
The institutional case responds:
"How evil! You are being paid for maintaining that Bridge!
Off with your head!"
You say: "We have built the Golden Gate Bridge now.
And it has been open to traffic for one week."
The institutional case responds:
"It is my true belief and conviction
that all Bridges are a means
of encouraging people to jump off them to their death.
I will not tolerate the use of Bridges.
I will boycott the Golden Gate Bridge,
being the biggest scam of all, as long as I breath!"
Who are these institutional cases
on 'Alt.Religion.Scientology' (the Internet
computer network newsgroup)?
Well, I can give you a whole list of names,
starting with Diane Richardson, Jim Diver, Tony McClelland,
Wollersheim, Jeff Jacobsen and so on,
up to Don Lindsay, Justin the Blue, Barwell, Bingham, Newman,
Jerry Ladd, Dennis Erlich, Tilman Hausherr, Grady Ward,
Andy Testa, Martin Hunt.
It's a long list.
Then there is a long list of borderline institutional cases,
such as Homer Wilson Smith, Flemming Funch
and Allen Hacker (Speaker), and others
who not ALL the time respond as institutional cases.
Their responses are slightly more predictable:
You say: "We have built the Golden Gate Bridge now.
And it has been open to traffic for one week."
The borderline institutional case responds:
"The Golden Gate Bridge does exist,
but it does not carry airplanes.
Also, submarines don't jump over it.
I have already crossed this Bridge,
and I am an expert on this Bridge.
I found its construction so ridiculous
that I built one myself right next to it.
My Bridge can be traveled at the speed of sound
so you don't even hear the traffic.
Also, it is built underwater
so that submarines can safely cross it."
They have more predictable responses.
It is still strictly institutional,
but one can somehow know what they will say.
They don't say the totally baffling things
the fully institutional cases
state AS IF THEY ARE NORMAL STATEMENTS.
This is why people who enter this newsgroup,
'Alt.Religion.Scientology', tend to get upset and repelled:
It is just too unbelievably insane
what the institutional cases say or write.
It is too unbelievable that people who can read and write
and who know the English language
make such statements AS IF THEY ARE NORMAL STATEMENTS.
It isn't that I don't like these people,
I like them MUCH more than they like themselves.
In fact these people hate themselves like hell.
I hardly can think of anyone
who hates herself more than 'The Squirrelle',
or David Worrell for that matter,
or Dennis Erlich
Talking about hate!
Religion has always attracted these people,
standing around at a distance - and the Internet newsgroup
does provide just enough distance
and just enough anonymity for that.
They can spread the hate - or confusion, in the cases of
for instance Funch, Homer and Allen - they desire to spread,
and they don't have someone standing next to them
who physically stops them from spreading hate and
lies or confusion,
from harming their fellow Man.
As long as they are allowed to spread insanity, that is.
Koos Nolst Trenite - Ron's Inspector
Copyright 1995 by Koos Nolst Trenite
reference:
RI-50R-Li 'Archives of RI-xxi and RI-ACT-xx series'
of 28 Dec 1994, Revised and Replaced 2 May 1995
Enclosure:
RI-ACT-24R 'KNT Tech for SPs' (Revised) of 29 Nov 1994
29 November 1994
RI-ACT-24R 'KNT-Tech for SPs' (Revised)
Message #24R for Alt.Clearing.Technology on Internet
from Ron's Inspector
Note: Anybody who says this does not work,
is himself or herself a Suppressive
who wants that Suppressives stay insane
'so that they are less destructive'.
The definition is however,
the more insane someone is,
the MORE destructive he is.
And the only way to handle a Suppressive
is to make him less insane,
not to suppress him further.
Suppressing a Suppressive Person further
has been the 'standard', the 'normal' way
of handling them almost since ever.
This kind of 'handling' of Suppressives - to
just make them more insane, to suppress them further -
is ended now,
and it is solely ended because I say it is ended,
and because LRH has provided the technology
to handle the very insane we call Suppressive Persons.
The common denominator for Suppressive Persons is 'No ARC'.
And they have lost practically all ARC for themselves.
The Tech for SP's to handle themselves is this simple:
RUN ARCX's WITH SELF.
All prerequisites for being able to solo-audit
do not apply here:
ANY ARCX with self, run by an SP,
is better than no ARCX with self run by an SP.
All one has to do is to get some idea of how to use an E-meter,
get some idea of what the words
Affinity (space, occupying space)
Reality (agreement. things to have)
Communication (perception and exchange)
Understanding (the combined use of all three A,R,C.)
mean,
and get some idea of the meaning of the words
'curious,
desired,
enforced,
inhibited,
no,
refused'.
And you put the SP, or you put yourself,
as the case may be,
in front of an E-meter with the cans in your hand(s),
and you assess (ARCUcdeinr) ARCX's with yourself,
and you indicate according to the reads you get,
and you ask yourself for an earlier similar ARCX with yourself,
and you assess that one
and so on earlier similar
to a key-out with Floating Needle (F/N).
Assessment is simply assessment.
You don't need to recall any significance
or even say anything,
or even know WHAT the ARCX is, nor WHEN it was,
nor what the CONTENT of the ARCX is.
You just assess it on an E-meter,
and follow the reads on the assessment commands.
That's one ARCX-chain completed.
And you can run a hundred of these chains on yourself,
and you are on your way,
or the SP is on his way,
to not be an SP anymore.
And maybe
after you run a thousand ARCX-chains
of ARCX's with yourself,
the condition
of being a Suppressive Person
might have vanished.
I don't promise anything,
but chances are pretty good
that an SP can actually lift himself out of the morass,
by this process,
WITHOUT ANY HELP FROM ANYBODY ELSE.
Try it out -
enough of you on the Internet ARE
actual Suppressive Persons.
I would like to have some success-stories on this,
in a few months that is,
of people who actually have done this,
by then.
Now,
any SANE person does run out ARCX's with himself
as soon as they occur, if he knows how to use an E-meter.
But with a Suppressive Person it is probably THE remedy,
if he (or she) keeps at it,
and I am sure he or she will keep at it,
because it will get any SP out in no time,
with fantastic relief.
It's really like raising someone from the dead,
returning oneself to life,
or returning life to oneself.
And even an SP wants that.
Koos Nolst Trenite - Ron's Inspector
Copyright 1994 by Koos Nolst Trenite
Back to the RI-Bulletin index.